SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Do we even need minor league baseball
|
Post by controne on Sept 11, 2019 18:59:02 GMT -5
I don't know a lot about player development but this is an intriguing article: fivethirtyeight.com/features/do-we-even-need-minor-league-baseball/What do people think about this? I'd guess that you'd need rookie & SS leagues for new players to adjust and to evaluate new talent. And you'd need some leagues to just below MLB to stash 4As and do some finishing. What do you really need in between? It would mean a lot fewer MiLB players. But aren't there a lot of 'filler' players that are never really going to make it? It's not like it's a great paying job.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 12, 2019 11:16:07 GMT -5
I'm not buying it. It sounds more like a cost-cutting measure than anything else. The amount of development remains the same from the time of the draft to the majors and it's a huge amount. Fewer teams would work for elite prospects, but not for the vast majority of MLB players who don't reach the majors until age 25. I mean could someone like Brock Holt just skip from AA to the majors? The league is absolutely filled with players like him.
The article completely ignored this point and instead focused on star prospects.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 12, 2019 11:34:18 GMT -5
The other part about minor league baseball is that a lot of people really like it and pay money to see it. This isn't disease research, where the end product being optimized is so vital. For a lot of fans, the minor league development process is the part they enjoy!
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,436
|
Post by nomar on Sept 12, 2019 11:40:39 GMT -5
Thank god im at work because that was a stupid read
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 12, 2019 11:44:15 GMT -5
Fewer league levels would lead to players who are too good for some levels and not good enough for the next level. How do those players develop?
IOW, because they don't want to spend more on coaching resources.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 12, 2019 11:59:28 GMT -5
I think his point is that they would devlop at complexes while not appearing in game action? Which... who wants that? Nobody wants that.
It's also kind of bad reporting because he talks to the Astros guy, but not someone from the Yankees, who have greatly expanded their number of affiliates.
The bit about "The NFL and NBA have guys to straight to the majors so why shouldn't baseball players" ignores the fact that... those are simply different sports with different learning curves and different talent levels between the college and pro levels? But also the NBA has a D-League for players who aren't ready, and the NFL has tried numerous times to develop a sort of minor league version to develop players.
The Casey Mize example is also bad because it addresses the wrong problem, in that the team he's under contract to isn't trying to win and that keeping him in the minor leagues keeps him their property for a longer time. Erie IS beneath him, but that has nothing to do with the Eastern League not being valuable to the development of guys. And I'm not even talking about fringy non-top-20 guys like McGrath who maybe figure something out. Look at Bobby Dalbec. The improvements Dalbec made weren't going to come in the complexes, he needed reps against dudes whose livelihood depended on being get out dudes like Bobby Dalbec. And he's a much better prospect than he was a year ago because of it.
One thing that gets traditionalists upset at the nerds - and I am comfortable using the pejorative because I am definitely a nerd - is the laser focus on *efficiency.* Not in terms of, like, "hey walks are important and players who walk more make fewer outs and that's why batting average is less useful than OBP," but straight up "how can we do this as cheaply as possible and get similar results" efficiency. Like people putting out $$/WAR numbers by teams as if they all aren't owned by billionaires, as if the A's and Rays were more successful than the Red Sox and Yankees and Dodgers last year. So the point of the field team is to win as many games as possible, and that might make for some changes that are less fun to watch. But the point of baseball is just baseball. We don't NEED minor league baseball any more than we need major league baseball. But people like minor league baseball.
|
|
|
Post by sittingstill on Sept 12, 2019 12:09:54 GMT -5
If I'm reading it correctly the Astros dropped the number of affiliate teams to be what the Sox have had consistently (aside from the DSL, and I am not entirely sure that the DSL teams require an enormous allocation of coaching and development resources).
There are some interesting points to be made asking the question, though I don;t know if they're in this piece. We had Fernando Perez speak at the Saber Seminar a couple years back (he has continued to participate since then) and he told the story of seeing an A- or high-A-level teammate who was the best defensive shortstop he'd ever seen, with MLB-caliber skills. He asked a coach, "Why is he here?" "Because he can't hit." Perez asked, rhetorically, "So... why don't we send him to hitting school?" It's a useful question, I think, to ask whether a player in that situation is best-served by playing nine innings a day to get four competitive at-bats--even if, in the grand scheme of things, the answer may still be "yes."
Tough timing for this piece as well when MiLB attendance in 2019 rebounded from the 2018 number they cite. Personally I've also just attended playoff games in Lowell and Wilmington where I can definitely say there is a lot of enthusiasm for the minor league teams as entities unto themselves.
I do wonder if the MiLB season needs to start at the beginning of April. Would be interesting to see what they could do with another month in camp with drills and batting exercises based on the information they can get from all the new wearable/bat-based/Trackman technology. (But I am clearly biased a bit here, since our AAA and AA affiliates start the year huddled in front of the heaters in their balaclavas...)
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 12, 2019 12:15:58 GMT -5
But wouldn't a good defender be challenged the same at roughly any level? I guess third base might be its own beast because people hit the ball so damn hard as you climb the ladder. But the example of the guy who can field but can't hit - someone struggling to hit in the Carolina League will still be improving his fielding just by getting reps, right? On balance, the Eastern League isn't going to challenge a player's fielding much more than the Carolina League. Whereas in most cases when the bat carries the glove past where it's ready, the glove can still catch up. We've seen that with Rafael Devers and Xander Bogaerts both within the last five years.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 12, 2019 12:26:44 GMT -5
The other part about minor league baseball is that a lot of people really like it and pay money to see it. This isn't disease research, where the end product being optimized is so vital. For a lot of fans, the minor league development process is the part they enjoy! Galaxy brain take: we shouldn't be thinking about expanding MLB to 32 teams, we should be thinking about expanding it to 90 teams.
|
|
|
Post by sittingstill on Sept 12, 2019 12:59:46 GMT -5
There are some interesting points to be made asking the question, though I don;t know if they're in this piece. We had Fernando Perez speak at the Saber Seminar a couple years back (he has continued to participate since then) and he told the story of seeing an A- or high-A-level teammate who was the best defensive shortstop he'd ever seen, with MLB-caliber skills. He asked a coach, "Why is he here?" "Because he can't hit." Perez asked, rhetorically, "So... why don't we send him to hitting school?" It's a useful question, I think, to ask whether a player in that situation is best-served by playing nine innings a day to get four competitive at-bats--even if, in the grand scheme of things, the answer may still be "yes." Maybe I'm being naive, but isn't A-ball supposed to be hitting school? If it's not serving that function then maybe they have a point. The idea was that the time he spent actually HITTING, as opposed to fielding (already at MLB level), sitting on bench, waiting through other BP groups, and participating in the rest of the game, on a daily basis, was so minimal when that was his one weakness. Would this specific player been better off spending 8 hours a day just studying hitting? Especially now that you can measure his body movements and everything he does with the bat, and program a machine to throw MLB-level pitches to him? (Perez wasn't suggesting doing away with the minors, but he was definitely asking folks to question "the way we've always done it.")
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Sept 12, 2019 14:12:13 GMT -5
The idea was that the time he spent actually HITTING, as opposed to fielding (already at MLB level), sitting on bench, waiting through other BP groups, and participating in the rest of the game, on a daily basis, was so minimal when that was his one weakness. Would this specific player been better off spending 8 hours a day just studying hitting? Especially now that you can measure his body movements and everything he does with the bat, and program a machine to throw MLB-level pitches to him? (Perez wasn't suggesting doing away with the minors, but he was definitely asking folks to question "the way we've always done it.") I think you're getting at a happy medium. They seem to do this a bit more than they used to, but it would be a good idea to have a larger group of guys come to XST throughout the year to focus all day on the aspects of they're game to improve, maybe 1-2 weeks at a time, before going back to their respective teams. Keep it going as a continuous flow. I would worry about leaving them there all year as they would likely miss certain aspects (sportsmanship, working with teammates, watching/learning from opponents, etc) which are more difficult to teach in a controlled environment. Think of it as the home school kid who is really smart but can't make friends or remember to tie his shoe laces.
|
|
|
Post by sittingstill on Sept 12, 2019 14:18:46 GMT -5
The idea was that the time he spent actually HITTING, as opposed to fielding (already at MLB level), sitting on bench, waiting through other BP groups, and participating in the rest of the game, on a daily basis, was so minimal when that was his one weakness. Would this specific player been better off spending 8 hours a day just studying hitting? Especially now that you can measure his body movements and everything he does with the bat, and program a machine to throw MLB-level pitches to him? (Perez wasn't suggesting doing away with the minors, but he was definitely asking folks to question "the way we've always done it.") Not attempting to debate the merit of the game as it pertains to their progress relative to other options, I'm not qualified for that. More to the point that minor league players are considered full time employees and, if you remove the 3 hours of game play, there's 5 hours left in the work day for hitting school. 5 is less than 8, but that still leaves a lot of time in the work day to teach these guys up. Is that not how it works? Not unlike regular school, the whole team works on things together, as far as I've ever seen. Have you seen a rotation through field BP? Each player gets about 25% of his group's time (assuming a group of 4) and each group gets about 20 minutes--so about 5 minutes hands-on time in an hour. I've not seen a situation where a player gets to skip infield work. The game may be three hours--or more--but players are generally preparing for the game an hour before (certainly out to the field for warmups etc. by around 30 minutes out). I'm unaware of a precedent for the kind of intensive focus on just hitting that Perez was (hypothetically) suggesting, especially in the lower minors. (And without getting too bogged down in the minute-to-minute timeline of the minor league day--his greater point was to think about how we develop the needed skills in players, by having them play successive years of increasingly more difficult levels, and ask, IS this the best way?)
|
|
|
Post by sittingstill on Sept 12, 2019 14:23:21 GMT -5
The idea was that the time he spent actually HITTING, as opposed to fielding (already at MLB level), sitting on bench, waiting through other BP groups, and participating in the rest of the game, on a daily basis, was so minimal when that was his one weakness. Would this specific player been better off spending 8 hours a day just studying hitting? Especially now that you can measure his body movements and everything he does with the bat, and program a machine to throw MLB-level pitches to him? (Perez wasn't suggesting doing away with the minors, but he was definitely asking folks to question "the way we've always done it.") I think you're getting at a happy medium. They seem to do this a bit more than they used to, but it would be a good idea to have a larger group of guys come to XST throughout the year to focus all day on the aspects of they're game to improve, maybe 1-2 weeks at a time, before going back to their respective teams. Keep it going as a continuous flow.I would worry about leaving them there all year as they would likely miss certain aspects (sportsmanship, working with teammates, watching/learning from opponents, etc) which are more difficult to teach in a controlled environment. Think of it as the home school kid who is really smart but can't make friends or remember to tie his shoe laces. I would imagine this is sort of the reverse of the way things work with the roving coordinators--I like the idea of essentially sending people off for a 1-2 week seminar. Would be nice not to fry them in Fort Myers, though. Maybe they could sneak people into Fenway during road trips, the way they've been doing with pitchers (though I think those have been day trips).
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 12, 2019 15:01:29 GMT -5
Haven't the pitchers all been doing Bannister trips to Fenway the last couple years?
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 12, 2019 15:45:09 GMT -5
Something I have witnessed as well as several of you that have spent a decent period of time at any team's ST facility during ST and seen, is that all of a team's MiLb teams rotate among other teams that are located within a certain distance. If cost cutting alone is the driving force, then locating ALL minor league teams to MiLB facilities, since they contain (in most cases) 2-4 minor league fields and a ST stadium.
Should be enough to locate 30 teams worth to all areas and have MLB quality support located there as well.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Sept 12, 2019 16:56:48 GMT -5
Every once in a blue moon lowly touted, non-top 100 prospects become impact players. Minor league baseball, which is abused by owners, allows these players to have a chance to figure things out and become impactful regulars on an MLB roster. I believe Kevin Youkilis and Daniel Nava (though not a regular) fit that description
In fact, I wish basketball and the NFL had a/better development league.
Maybe Danny Etling could have been more for the Patriots if he got to see live action?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 12, 2019 17:30:43 GMT -5
Maybe I'm being naive, but isn't A-ball supposed to be hitting school? If it's not serving that function then maybe they have a point. The idea was that the time he spent actually HITTING, as opposed to fielding (already at MLB level), sitting on bench, waiting through other BP groups, and participating in the rest of the game, on a daily basis, was so minimal when that was his one weakness. Would this specific player been better off spending 8 hours a day just studying hitting? Especially now that you can measure his body movements and everything he does with the bat, and program a machine to throw MLB-level pitches to him? (Perez wasn't suggesting doing away with the minors, but he was definitely asking folks to question "the way we've always done it.") There is no substitute for live pitching in real games. You aren't going to replicate that in XST or other camps. It will help, but not nearly enough. Machines cannot substitute for pitchers using deception and seeing the arm motion.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 12, 2019 20:08:17 GMT -5
The idea was that the time he spent actually HITTING, as opposed to fielding (already at MLB level), sitting on bench, waiting through other BP groups, and participating in the rest of the game, on a daily basis, was so minimal when that was his one weakness. Would this specific player been better off spending 8 hours a day just studying hitting? Especially now that you can measure his body movements and everything he does with the bat, and program a machine to throw MLB-level pitches to him? (Perez wasn't suggesting doing away with the minors, but he was definitely asking folks to question "the way we've always done it.") There is no substitute for live pitching in real games. You aren't going to replicate that in XST or other camps. It will help, but not nearly enough. Machines cannot substitute for pitchers using deception and seeing the arm motion. You haven't been following the progression of robotics. Not only is it possible, it's inevitable.
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Sept 13, 2019 7:57:10 GMT -5
NFL draft choices go straight to the starting lineups. NBA draft choices go straight to the starting lineups. MLB draft choices go straight to...the Rookie League. Why? Because baseball is HARD. It's much harder than the other sports. There is so much to learn before you can compete on a major league level. Even when you get there, there is still much to learn. It's the hardest game to play. You start learning to throw and catch when you're 5 years old. You have to. If you waited until you're in high school, it would be next to impossible. But, lots of kids learn football as freshmen in high school and go on to play well. Basketball, too. Nobody does that in baseball.
I've read that the lower levels is where you learn to play. The higher levels (AA+AAA) is where they teach you to win.
That's why baseball is the greatest game of all.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 13, 2019 8:30:30 GMT -5
Another exciting way teams would develop a competitive advantage would be to buy them fruits and vegetables instead of just giving a 19 year old who may or may not speak English in a hotel next to the Waffle House a food allowance and sending them on their way. That'd be less efficient though.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Sept 13, 2019 9:17:06 GMT -5
The article focuses on hitting and pitching. As Costpet points out, there is a lot more to becoming a major league player. He is right, baseball is the hardest sport to learn and to play well. It requires enormous amounts of practice and playing. It requires a huge amount of repetition and that requirement continues throughout a player's career. Think of Dustin Pedroia and his constant routine of practicing.
Technology certainly can help to improve a player's skills but it is no substitute to being on the field, where the unexpected happens all the time and only a whole lot of repetition on the field can prepare a player for the unexpected.
The article tries to make the point that good players in the minors are playing against players of lesser skills and that somehow this negatively impacts their development. The flaw in this argument is the assumption that baseball is a one-on-one sport. To a fair degree it is that between the pitcher and the hitter but the pitcher depends on fielders most of the time. Fielding skills develop regardless of the quality of the hitters. The ball in motion is completely independent of the skill of the hitter.
So, yes, we need the minor leagues.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 13, 2019 11:53:51 GMT -5
And the more I think about it, the "he can't hit" example feels reductionist. If someone just can't hit then they're probably not going to hit. If someone has a specific flaw that needs to be corrected, then teams should figure out the best way to correct that. If that's going back to the complexes for a time, or being challenged, or being babied--and that all depends on the specific player. And you take different approaches with different players. Josh Ockimey was promoted from Salem to Portland a couple years back despite not really hitting his way out of the level, presumably because they thought his more patient approach should be challenged. Marcus Wilson struggled badly in Portland but reset after a demotion to Salem and then played well after being promoted again. Bobby Dalbec struggled at Salem the first half last year, they stuck with him, and he just exploded in July. The article seems to assume that the stratification of the minor leagues means the teams take a one-size-fits all development path, and there's no evidence that it exists.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 13, 2019 12:00:25 GMT -5
The more I think about it, the more dumb this article gets. Basically, the conclusion is that since guys like Soto, Acuna, Trout, Devers, etc. do not need the minor leagues, no one needs the minor leagues because there are no other players in the majors like Daniel Nava.
Maybe he should re-write the article focusing on players like Aaron Judge.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 13, 2019 12:03:31 GMT -5
The more I think about it, the more dumb this article gets. Yo, I'm with you. It keeps popping into my head, like some bad earworm pop song, and it just keeps making me more and more irrationally angry.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 13, 2019 15:01:37 GMT -5
So I'm a little late to the party here, but my thoughts:
Maybe I'm missing something, but I took a very different point from this article than many seem to have taken. To me, reading this and having the takeaway being "there should not be minor league baseball", or at least that it should be contracted, is like reading Moneyball and taking away the main point as "walks are good." For me, the key is this quote:
To me, the question raised here (which could have been better raised) is why does every team have a minor league farm system comprised of the 4 full-season level affiliates, 2-4 domestic short-season affiliates, and 1-2 DSL affiliates? All have, more or less, the same coaching staff, plus the same roving instructor positions. More or less, based on my understanding.
We're starting to see some shifting. The Fall Instructional League is one area. As I reported on the podcast episode we released this afternoon, the Red Sox will not be playing other clubs this year. Instead it'll be a camp in which the players on the roster will be coming and going at different times in order to receive more direct instruction.
On the instruction side, as noted, Brian Bannister's department has added a whole new frontier of pitch design that is already paying enormous dividends. The org added a full-time assistant as a fourth coach at each level in the past 5 years or so as well, which makes perfect sense. There are also player dev interns at most of the affiliates, I believe, for tasks involving things like video.
Making the headline "Do we even need minor league baseball?" is a provocative way to raise the issue, but I don't think anyone is advocating doing away with the minor leagues in this piece. It's more wondering why there aren't more questions about why things are set up this way, where innovation can give clubs the advantage, etc.
|
|
|